I can’t imagine where she served during her career that would generate so few ribbons. I got three rows of ribbons with one deployment. Throw in the freebies and attaboys and her rather masculine chest should be covered.

That’s a Navy thing. She probably has more awards than that. i was Army, so i don’t know the precise Navy regulation on display of decorations, but i do know that i’ve seen file photos of Admirals who have the same kind of arrangement.

Most Naval Officers only wear their top three ribbons on they’re working uniform. Blues, while considered a working uniform, are traditionally worn with all ribbons. She should have worn all her awards when taking that type of picture.

That said, she doesnt deserve her rank. If a man had committed half of what she had committed, theyd drum him out of the service as an E-1, and he might be facing jail time.

I met a few men during my career who could give Graf a run for her money but who kept climbing the ranks because of connections. Sad to say that promoting people far beyond their competency, while rare, isn't new. It isn't limited to men. And it isn't limited to the Navy.

Most Naval Officers only wear their top three ribbons on theyre working uniform. Blues, while considered a working uniform, are traditionally worn with all ribbons. She should have worn all her awards when taking that type of picture.

Yes and yes. That appears to be an official command photo, the type that is usually displayed on the Quarterdeck while in port along with the ship's XO and CMC. Every one of these that I've seen are taken with full ribbons. Though I believe officers must also maintain a recent portrait and full body photo in their service record. This might be one of those photos.

During the Iraq war, the services were keeping a lot of personnel who had some black marks against them. Once the war ended, and personnel needs weren't so intense, some purges began, and people deemed as operating below standards were weeded out and not allowed to re-enlist. If they were short of their twenty years, I suppose it would be possible for some of them to join the reserves and complete their 20 years, although they would have to wait until age 60 to draw a pension.

Someone getting a dishonorable discharge has done something to REALLY tick off the military, and would most likely not get any benefits. If the person had a general discharge, but had 20 years in, it wouldn't necessarily mean that they would be denied a pension. If they get a general discharge, and don't have 20 years in, and are NOT recommended for re-enlistment, they are screwed, unless a reserve unit is willing to take them in. These days though, that is unlikely.

There are other reasons the military can discharge someone prior to end of enlistment. Medical reasons can be one. "Convenience of the Service" might be another, and it could mean that they no longer need the skills that person has.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.